This is plainly translated who is working in (the instruments of / in the sound of) timpanies and citharas,

but I thought this in timpanis et citharis may be instrumental.So I checked L&S and Gildersleeve.

But, in L&S for in + abl. there was no definition of by means of, in Gildersleeve for the preposition in, too, there was no such definition, and the section for ablative of means (401) had no example of the use with in (only, in Note 1., erudire in + abl. was mentioned).

Though this is a different additional question,in L&S operor under the article (b). With dat., to bestow pains upon a thing; to devote one's self to, be engaged in or occupied with a thing (mostly poet. and in post-Aug. prose):there is a sample with in + abl..

The "ablative of means" is, by definition, I think, an ablative operating alone, without a preposition. I know "ab homine" is instrumental but I don't think (maybe I'm wrong) that you have to talk of an "ablative of means" there, since its the collocation which is instrumental. Per can mean "by means of" but you wouldn't say its accusative was an "accusative of means".

then how do you translate qui in timpanis et citharis operaris ?To me the plain translation (the fiery spirit .... probably the holy spirit) who devote himself to / is occupied with (playing) timpanies and citharas is a little unclear and needs an explanation.

Again, if this translates "who serves God / celebrate the rite for God with timpanies and citharas (instrumental)", it is clearer to me.

Junya wrote:then how do you translate qui in timpanis et citharis operaris ?To me the plain translation (the fiery spirit .... probably the holy spirit) who devote himself to / is occupied with (playing) timpanies and citharas is a little unclear and needs an explanation.

Again, if this translates "who serves God / celebrate the rite for God with timpanies and citharas (instrumental)", it is clearer to me.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but, for me, it seems this verb + "in" is rather like (or can be like) "I work in computers" and "I work with computers" in English.

Thank you. Then I wait for others to come to help, or later post the same question anew.

By the way,I wrote :

But in L&S for operor there was a sample sentence with in + abl. which obviously means instrumentally.This.http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... y%3DoperorB. In partic., in relig. lang., to serve the gods, perform sacred rites, to honor or celebrate by sacrifices “sacra refer Cereri laetis operatus (= sacrificans) in herbis,” Verg. G. 1, 339;

you wrote :

"laetis operatus in herbis" "performed in/on/upon the lush grass"

I thought this meantgive Ceres a sacred rite sacrificing with green crops pleasant to her

You may feel strange why I am so concerned about exact meaning.English speakers seem to have tendency to be content with abstract or not-so-clear understanding of the meaning of Latin texts.I suppose that is because English has similar way of expressions to Latin, and a literal translation often goes as English, at least superficially.But Japanese doesn't allow the literal translation. That's too un-understandable. I feel I have to understand the meaning more clearly, exactly, concretely, not abstractly, when I translate Latin into Japanese.

Oh I'm happy, with this 350th post I became Textkit Enthusiast.

Last edited by Junya on Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Junya wrote:English speakers seem to have tendency to be content with abstract or not-so-clear understanding of the meaning of Latin texts.

I don't completely agree with you there, Junya. Possibly you mean that some translators depart from a literal meaning, by bending the meaning somewhat to give a translation that achieves an end similar to the end imagined by the original author but in the language of the translator's readers,—English, say. But you need to understand English very, very well to see that purpose and judge just how faithful the interpretor has been. Of course, there can also be poor translations.

No, no, I'm saying now about the English-speaking learners of Latin, though I'm including the translators in them.

For example, to understand the Latin in, English speakers are given the English in which has various meanings similar to Latin, so they are content with getting the easy (and comprehensive) translation word in and don't bother to dig into it to get the narrower, exact meaning used in the text.I suppose you will agree to that.

When a person tries to make a translation to show it to others, it is hard to make a good one with such vague understanding.When I try to translate Latin into Japanese, this problem always confronts me.

Junya wrote:For example, to understand the Latin in, English speakers are given the English in which has various meanings similar to Latin, so they are content with getting the easy (and comprehensive) translation word in and don't bother to dig into it to get the narrower, exact meaning used in the text.

"In" is a word that you can in different ways in Latin and that can be used in different ways in English. Translating "in" by "in" or "on",—provided the English translation makes good sense,—the fluent reader of English will immediately recognize which narrow sense of "in" (or "on") is meant in English by disambiguation,—by ruling out the other senses that don't fit and selecting the narrow sense that does. Neither the reader nor the translator was being lazy in not insisting something with narrower possibilities be used. Just the opposite: they disambiguate rapidly and adeptly. Nor do I think another translation would be more exact than "in" or "on" here. "In" or "on" (in English) for "in" (in Latin) was both literal and understandable. Maybe you let yourself be distracted from recognizing "in" as conveying a sense of place by imagining it might be used instrumentally. I admit I will sometimes miss the obvious when an esoteric notion comes into my head.

I hesitate to add a post, it's too long for a topic, and even is off the topic....

I wrote :

to understand the Latin in, English speakers are given the English in which has various meanings similar to Latin, so they are content with getting the easy (and comprehensive) translation word in and don't bother to dig into it to get the narrower, exact meaning used in the text.

you answered :

Translating "in" by "in" or "on",—provided the English translation makes good sense,—the fluent reader of English will immediately recognize which narrow sense of "in" (or "on") is meant in English by disambiguation,—by ruling out the other senses that don't fit and selecting the narrow sense that does. Neither the reader nor the translator was being lazy in not insisting something with narrower possibilities be used. Just the opposite: they disambiguate rapidly and adeptly.

I admit it, about the disambiguation.But there is something you are not aware of.Such disambiguation is done in a way subconsciously.So it happens when such a reader is asked suddenly which meaning of, for example, in is used he can't clearly choose and point to the exact meaning, because he wasn't aware of , wasn't conscious of his disambiguation process, and after pondering on it gives two or three possible meanings as an answer.So it also happens that people of mixed parentage, like, mixed of American and Japanese, are not good interpretors at all without special training.It needs a special training (whether by oneself or taught by others) to become conscious of that disambiguation process.Without it, even the fluent readers' understanding is only a holding of a comprehensive, vague notion.Just to understand and to put it out by words are different.The latter needs clear consciousness of exact, pinpoint notions.

So, to translate well, one has to know consciously the narrow, exact meaning.

By the way, I have seen a lot of translations (mostly philosophical, though) which by using ambiguous words are hiding their hesitation or laziness or inability to choose the exact meanings.

Last edited by Junya on Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am aware that people can have difficulty explaining exactly how they understand something. Another complication is that someone can express a thing that is capable of having complimentary meanings or opposite meanings. People don't always express themselves in exact, pinpoint notions, nor do they always want to, so for a translation to be exact it may be required to be loose.

I am aware that people can have difficulty explaining exactly how they understand something.

yes, I think so. I always observe it in myself and in others.And resuming to the talk of translating, even the scholars, who consider themselves well understanding the original text, when they translate it, very very often make extremely poor translation.

Another complication is that someone can express a thing that is capable of having complimentary meanings or opposite meanings. People don't always express themselves in exact, pinpoint notions, nor do they always want to, so for a translation to be exact it may be required to be loose.

Yes, like the case of in, though if the translator was me, I would translate such a place not loosely, but put in not-loose words several parallel readings alongside the main reading I choose. But as to how a translation should be, I think it should be exact, I mean, the understanding of the translator should be exactly expressed, right or wrong.Translations which are literal and can be understood two or more opposite ways are useless, they convey nothing.(I like to translate, and want to be a translator, so I have a philosophy on how translations should be, and think the way translations are made in the present time and so far is wrong.)

I have more to explain my idea, with which you disagree at present.But before that, I think I should ask you if you like me going on with this talking digressing from the topic.Do you like me going on ?Or, had I better stop this time ?

Could you tell me how you read Latin ?I would like to hear it as an advice from you.Please give me some advices reading about my strange habit below.

Since I started challenging to read Tertullianus, my way of reading Latin changed strangely.Before that time I was mainly reading with pocket dictionaries and used L&S only occationally.But Tertullianus was so difficult that I needed the consultation of L&S for almost every word.And worse, L&S itself was difficult, understanding its definitions needed much regard to lots of example sentences.So I began to laboriously read that dictionary, the consultation of which took me far more time than pocket dictionaries. In addition, I began to be interested in Latin words themselves.That means I began to be unable to help checkinng every definition given for a word, in seeking for and till I arrive at the exact meaning used in the Latin text I was reading. (It takes a lot of time, as I wrote above.)The reason I'm so concerned about getting the exact meaning is that.Now I'm not reading Tertullianus, but this strange habit remains, even with any easy text, and I can't change the habit, as if stuck in a groove.I know a beginner like me should not so much care about the exact meaning but should read more loosely, though, because such meticulous consultation of L&S takes away much time and keeps one from being exposed to many texts.

Give me an advice, Adrianus.Should I change the habit ?How can I change it ?But I guess maybe this my habit could be utilised for some study. So if there is one, please let me know how I can utilise my habit for it.

I won't pretend, Junya. I have no good advice. I, too, often have to look up words in dictionaries and, even then, often have to struggle to understand texts. It's a lot of work for me, made longer by working alone but it's encouraging to participate in a forum such as this.